Several suppliers, several contracts
Each supplier has its scope, its contract, its payment schedule, its margin. It reports on its own commitments, not on those of the others, and does not want its costs to be visible to its neighbors.
Comparison Steering a multi-supplier project: software comparison
A multi-supplier project brings several organizations together around a single trajectory: a prime contractor or an integrator, engineering firms, subcontractors, one or more public or private principals, each with its own contract and milestones. Planisware, Planview, Kantata and Projektron BCS each answer it in their own way, from the strategic portfolio to the project ERP. pylotik handles it through linked projects, each linking a supplier and its client. This comparison says what each tool allows, and what it does not.
The problem
When a trajectory depends on several organizations.
Building a structure, modernizing a production line, rolling out an information system, a public transformation program: the outcome depends on suppliers who work neither in the same teams nor in the same tools.
Several principals, several projects
The same supplier often runs projects for different client organizations, and the same principal has several suppliers working in parallel. The portfolio reads both ways.
Interdependent milestones
One party's acceptance waits for another's delivery. A delay at a subcontractor pushes back a contractual milestone at the prime contractor, which in turn pushes back the go-live at the end client.
Shared governance
Committees where each party presents its progress, decisions that bind several parties, actions that pass from one organization to another, risks that belong to no one in particular.
The finding
Why task management tools reach their limits.
- They assume a single team One workspace, members, guests. The other suppliers enter as guests of a board, not as parties to a commitment.
- They track tasks, not contracts Knowing that tasks are finished does not say whether a contractual milestone is met, nor what remains to be invoiced to each supplier.
- They mix what must stay separate Sharing a common board exposes everyone's internal organization, or forces you to keep two: the real one, and the one you show.
- They leave governance outside The agenda, the minutes, their validation and the decisions live in documents sent by e-mail.
The classic result: each supplier steers in its own tool, then the program lead rebuilds an overview every month in a spreadsheet and a slide deck, from exports and messages. The work can perfectly well stay in each party's tools, including in a project ticketing tool like Jira. What is missing is a reference data set for commitments, milestones, decisions and validations, which all parties read without copying it.
Choice guide
If your priority is…
The tools compared do not look at a multi-supplier program from the same place.
| Your priority | Tool that fits | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Steering, with each supplier and each client, commitments linked to one another | pylotik | One project per supplier-client relationship, linked projects, monitored dependencies, traced governance, a portfolio view to arbitrate. |
| Protecting the margin of each relationship, on the prime contractor side as on the subcontractor side | pylotik | Contract of each project, cost and margin at completion visible to the supplier alone, team workload plan, invoicing orders sent to the ERP through a connector built to your needs. |
| Staying in a PPM suite already deployed group-wide, or running an R&D pipeline in Stage-Gate | Planisware or Planview | Stage-Gate documented at Planisware, inter-project dependencies documented at Planview, portfolio financial consolidation. |
| Issuing your invoices in the same tool, with no ERP alongside | Kantata | Mixed fixed-price and time-and-materials invoicing on a single invoice, capacity forecasting. |
| Deep projects, resources, finance, contracts and project ticketing in a single ERP | Projektron BCS | Sub-projects, programs, contracts, maintenance, support portal, cloud hosted in Germany. |
The vendors
Four tools facing several suppliers.
Each presentation draws on the vendor's public documentation, checked on the date shown under the table.
Planisware
Planisware, a French vendor, serves large organizations and their PMOs with Enterprise and Orchestra: advanced planning (PERT, WBS, earned value), portfolio trade-offs, capacity and cost consolidation of contributing projects. Inter-project dependencies are not explicitly described in its documentation, and no client access is documented there.
Planview
The Planview suite structures programs, projects, products and epics, and documents dependency management at program level as well as a cross-team and cross-project work graph. An External Collaborator portal exists in AdaptiveWork, a product separate from Portfolios. The suite targets large enterprises and is split across several products.
Kantata
Kantata, a PSA for services companies, offers dashboards across the whole portfolio and dependencies between tasks. Inter-project dependencies and a project hierarchy are not documented in the pages consulted; the client can be invited on the "Client" side of a project workspace. The pylotik vs Kantata comparison details these points.
Projektron BCS
Projektron BCS documents a deep structure: sub-projects, sub-sub-projects, nested project groups, programs and portfolios, with inter-project dependencies cited on its multi-project page. It also covers contracts, maintenance and project ticketing, with an external support portal. Client access to projects is cited only in testimonials, and the vendor points small teams to its lighter version, BCS.light.
Feature by feature
Linked projects, dependencies, external access: what each documents.
"Not documented" means the vendor's public documentation does not mention it, not that the tool does not do it.
| Feature | pylotik | Planisware | PlanviewCloud Act | KantataCloud Act | Projektron BCS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| European sovereignty | France | France | Non-EUUnited States | Non-EUUnited States | Germany |
| Project management (tasks, milestones, schedule) | YesWork packages, tasks, phases, milestones, Gantt | YesGantt, PERT, WBS, milestones, Stage-Gate, agile; Orchestra covers waterfall, agile, hybrid and phase-gate | YesSchedules, milestones, hybrid agile / waterfall; Gantt and WBS also in AdaptiveWork | YesTasks, deliverables, milestones, Gantt chart and task tracking. | YesClassic and agile methods (Scrum, PRINCE2, Kanban, PMBOK). |
| Multi-project steering | YesPortfolio steering and arbitration | YesCore of the offer: portfolios, scenarios, consolidation | Yes | YesDashboards across the whole portfolio. | YesMulti-project table, cross-cutting evaluations, portfolio. |
| Linked or nested projects | Via moduleLinked projects, one level (Extended Project) | PartialWBS, cost consolidation of contributing projects and SAFe programs documented; generic program / project hierarchy not detailed | YesPrograms, projects, products, epics, features with multi-level funding | Not documented | YesSubprojects and sub-subprojects; nested project groups and programs. |
| Dependencies between projects | Via moduleMonitored, without recalculating dates | PartialAgile dependencies at team level and PERT network documented; dependencies between projects not explicitly described | YesDependency management at program level and a Connected Work Graph across teams and projects | YesDependencies between tasks in the Gantt or the Task Tracker; dependencies between projects not documented. | YesFinish-to-start and start-to-finish dependencies within the project; cross-project dependencies cited on the multi-project page (through a customer testimonial). |
| Resources and assignments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | YesPeople, equipment and rooms. |
| Workload plan | Yes | YesSupply / demand / capacity views, over-allocations, what-if | YesCapacity planning, assignment views | YesDemand forecasting and capacity optimization. | YesCross-cutting utilization view to avoid overloads. |
| Client contracts | YesA contract for each project | Not documented | Via moduleThrough ChangePoint (management of contracts, rates and billing structures) | Not documented | YesContract generator, life cycle, deadlines and reminders, contract control. |
| Financial tracking and margin | YesOrdered, invoiced, paid, margin | YesBudgets, forecasts, consolidated costs, P&L, NPV | YesBudgets, forecasts, costs and benefits; margin through billing rates in AdaptiveWork | YesBudgets, margins, revenue recognition. | YesProject controlling; earned value analysis in the BCS edition. |
| Calendars | YesPersonal, project, client | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | YesProject calendar with milestones, meetings and appointments. |
| Meetings and minutes | YesAgenda, minutes | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | YesMeetings planned, organized, held, recorded and followed up in BCS. |
| Decision log | Yes | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented |
| Action tracking | Yes | PartialWorkbox, social feed and "issues" listed under collaboration; no RAID register described | Not documented | Not documented | PartialInternal tickets, reminders and progress log; no named RAID register. |
| Risk register | YesShared or internal | PartialRisk indicators in the workflow templates; a third-party review (PeerSpot) describes risks tied to tasks or the WBS | PartialRisk register in AdaptiveWork; in Portfolios, risks handled at program level and by AI, with no dedicated module described | PartialRisk identification and health indicators; no risk register described. | YesRisk and opportunity management in preparation, planning and execution. |
| Client access | Yes | Not documented | Via moduleAdaptiveWork's External Collaborator portal (projects, files, conversations, requests) | PartialThe client can be invited on the "Client" side of the project workspace; no dedicated portal described. | YesExternal support portal for tickets; client access to projects cited in testimonials. |
| Client access without a license | YesExternal client organizations | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented |
| Client validation | YesMinutes, amendments, interventions | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented |
| Dashboards | Yes | YesReal-time ad hoc reporting, dashboards, BI connection | Yes200+ reports, dashboards, embedded Power BI | YesBI module and customizable dashboards. | YesProject reports, PDF export, multi-project evaluations. |
| Connectors and API | PartialProject ticketing (Jira) and ERP; optional connectors depending on needs; no public API | YesOpen REST API, connectors for ERP, accounting, agile, ITSM | YesSAP, NetSuite, Oracle, Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow, Atlassian, Microsoft; 60+ integrations announced on the home page | YesCRM and accounting connectors, Slack, Jira, Workato, MuleSoft, API. | PartialOpen interfaces and standards, two-way synchronization with Jira; public API not detailed on the page. |
Information checked in October 2026, against the vendors' public documentation. It changes: see the sources. The flag shows the vendor's country; the Cloud Act badge flags a vendor under US law, or owned by a US group, subject to the CLOUD Act; Non-EU, a vendor established outside the European Union.
The model
How pylotik steers several suppliers, as it is.
The model, described exactly: it has limits, and they are also its arguments.
- A project links a supplier and a client This is the basic building block. Each project carries the contract of that relationship, fixed price on milestones or time and materials, with its ordered, invoiced and paid amounts and its margin, visible to the supplier alone.
- Projects link to one another With the Extended Project module, from the Business tier, a project is split into work packages and linked to other projects: your own, or a project run by another supplier of whom you are a client.
- On one level A project can have linked projects, but these linked projects do not themselves have linked projects. You steer a program and its projects, not a bottomless tree.
- Monitored dependencies Dependencies between projects and between milestones are monitored, with no automatic recalculation of dates. A slip at one supplier is visible, but it does not silently rewrite the others' schedule.
- Governance per relationship Each project has its meetings and committees, its minutes validated by the client, its decisions, its actions and its shared or internal risks. Project governance is held at the right level.
- A portfolio for the overall view The portfolio view and the Gantt-type schedule give the shared trajectory, and this is where workload, priorities and milestones are steered and arbitrated; a supplier's or a client's calendar gathers meetings and interventions.
Why this is an argument and not a confession. First, each contract remains bilateral: a subcontractor does not see the prime contractor's margin, nor does the prime contractor see the subcontractor's, and the client sees neither. Second, the absence of automatic recalculation forces a decision: an upstream delay becomes a committee topic, with a traced decision, rather than a cascade of dates that nobody validated. Multi-project steering details how this works.
In all frankness
Where pylotik is relevant, and where it is not.
Relevant when…
- You are a prime contractor, a general contractor or an integrator In construction, industry, engineering or digital services, you hold a commitment toward your client, external or internal, and bring in subcontractors of whom you are yourself a client.
- Each relationship has its contract Fixed price, time and materials, maintenance contract: each supplier reports on its commitment, not on a list of tasks.
- The client has to follow and validate Its access is free on every tier, without seeing margins or internal steering. See the client portal.
- You want to stop consolidating by hand The milestones, decisions and validations of each linked project are read in the same place, instead of a spreadsheet assembled before each committee.
Another tool remains the better choice when…
- Your program requires several levels of nesting Projektron BCS and Planview document sub-projects and programs on several levels; pylotik stops at one level.
- You want a critical path recalculated across projects pylotik monitors dependencies without recalculating dates.
- A PPM suite is already deployed group-wide If your organization lives in Planview, or runs an R&D pipeline in Stage-Gate as Planisware documents it, staying there avoids a second layer of tools.
- You need a public API or SSO pylotik has neither. It connects to project ticketing tools like Jira and to the ERP, to send it the invoicing orders, through a connector built to your needs.
Frequently asked questions
What people ask about multi-supplier programs.
How do you steer a multi-supplier project?
By separating what is specific to each relationship (contract, margin, internal organization) from what is shared (interdependent milestones, decisions, risks, trajectory). Each supplier reports on its commitment, dependencies between milestones are followed, and committees rely on data that each party reads without copying it.
Can you put several suppliers in the same pylotik project?
No. A project links one supplier and one client. Several suppliers are steered by linking their projects, with the Extended Project module, on one level. This keeps each contract and each margin within its own relationship.
What happens when an upstream milestone slips?
The dependency is monitored, but downstream dates are not recalculated automatically. The slip becomes a topic to arbitrate, in committee, with a traced decision.
Is a PPM enough for a multi-supplier program?
A PPM consolidates a portfolio and its resources very well. It is built for the organization that deploys it: Planisware does not document external access, Planview offers it through AdaptiveWork. pylotik also covers steering and arbitration of the portfolio (portfolio view, workload, priorities, milestones, committees, decisions) and adds the suppliers, the client and execution. The comparison of portfolio software details these differences.
Is the Extended Project module included everywhere?
No. It is available from the Business tier, like the other modules. The prices are public on the pricing page.
Do suppliers see each other's margins?
No. The cost and margin of a project stay with the supplier that runs it. The client follows what concerns it and validates what is submitted to it, without seeing margins, workload or HR data.
Next
Going further.
- Multi-project and multi-party steering: linked projects, monitored dependencies, portfolio.
- The portfolio software comparison: Planisware, Planview, Sciforma and ServiceNow SPM.
- pylotik vs Kantata: a services company's PSA against steering with the client.
- Operational commitment management: a reference data set read by each party.
- The product tour: contracts, projects, maintenance and committees in the same tool.
- Pricing: seats, free client access and modules.
- All comparisons: PSA, PPM and work management.